Read the article. They did that.

It is a physical monopoly based on wires. In general, we don't want lots of companies building out cable and telephone wires. The government has acknowledged that, and established a system to decide who gets to control the wires. There is a way to fix that regulatory framework and separate the ISPs from the telcos. That would be awesome, but it isn't how things are today.

No, I'm telling you that if you look at the municipalities in Maryland, you will find many counties and cities that exclusively contracted with Comcast. Using the Baltimore City example: since there is only one franchise, and the local government has not granted a second license for at least 35 years, that's what we call "exclusive."

Ahhh, but knowing this is important! These laws were written to try and combat monopolies.

Actually, the fact that it exists is a consequence of the presence of monopolies.

It tries to prevent them from acting like a monopoly, because without the existence of this document they are one. But it failed, because they really are a monopoly, and merely saying "you have to play fair" didn't really work out. :-(

That's good: the law we are discussing is what makes that possible. Before that law existed, the telcos often refused to allow other companies to use those wires. When a company controls a physical resource, via government granted franchise agreement, and refuses to allow other companies in, we have a term for that... :-)

Just don't make the mistake of assuming that, because you have such an ISP, the 15 year history of consolidation, buyouts, and bankruptcies didn't happen.

Logic!

I'll stop replying because this has just gotten silly. Originally, I thought you had some good points about Alamo and I thought I could fill in some details and expand on it. When it turned to disagreement I thought maybe I could figure out where the miscommunication or misunderstanding is. But an argument over whether or not these companies are monopolies is pointless. That is a matter of fact, law, and a consequence of history. This topic is not something with 2 sides that can be debated. It is well understood by most Americans since they live it. Nobody likes their cable company or telephone company, and very few people have ISPs other than those two.

Is it still an "oral contract" if you recorded the call, including the notice that it may be recorded for quality assurance purposes? Under federal law, 17 USC 101, a sound recording is considered "fixed in a tangible medium".

In order to get the same level of service that Comcast provides in those areas that Comcast serves, an LTE provider would charge $1,500 per month. That's 300 GB per month, the cap that Comcast applies to home customers in at least some areas, times $5 per GB.

Whose offerings are cost prohibitive. AT&T and Verizon are wireless ISPs, and wireless ISPs in the United States charge $5 per GB or more.

Someone who just turned 18 didn't. Someone who voted for a candidate that lost didn't.

In what way is $5 per GB not "that expensive"?

Good luck getting home from school if you use the computer in the school library after school. And good luck getting anything done on a day when school is not in session.

The article is an ad for a subscription VPN. Is a subscription VPN going to be an expected recurring fee for all web users in the near future? And how do you make sure your VPN operator isn't teeing all your data to the NSA?

So how does someone bootstrap his ability to function in society if the shoe stores have such a no shirt/no shoes policy?

Is it anything like "Ayn Volk, Ayn Reich"?

When the phone is in "pretend to be a desktop" mode, with a Bluetooth keyboard and an external monitor, its touch surface would behave like a trackpad. People who have used Apple's Magic Trackpad would have little trouble adapting.

I didn't carry a monitor. I carried a phone, a ZAGGkeys Flex keyboard, and an HDMI video cable, and I'm using someone else's monitor that happens to be in front of me.

That's not true, go ahead and google "cable monopolies" or something like that. If you live in an area where you have more than one cable company, you are in an unusual situation. If you want just one example: Comcast in Maryland. They are a monopoly. If you want other examples, just google "cable monopolies." Here's a map of them around the US.

Why do you think that law needed to be written?

The law that mandates access to the telco hardware for other ISPs isn't granting them the monopoly: it is trying to prevent the monopoly. It would be circular to say "since there is a law that tries to prevent the monopoly from taking over, therefore, there is not a monopoly." Especially since the law didn't work.

Can we start an organization who buys the customer list and destroys it? Except I don't want them to actually profit from this. Hmmmm...